User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2016/June

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bonsoir (as we don't say in Italy), I have been in France for a few days (in the south well away from the floods) and have been astonished each time I log in to be invited to find a way to stop harassment on Wikipedia - there's even a grant [1] (who's money one wonders - is that the correct apostrophe - I'm never sure) to fund my inventive solution to prevent said harassment. I thought about saying "ban Eric Corbett - I claim my $1000,0000" (it's bound to be American money), but then began to think, why not offer thousands of dollars to someone who can think of a way of writing a half-decent page. I wonder why they don't. It's interesting, n'est ce pas. Discuss: Giano (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard enough trying to squeeze money out of the local council just to get some cash for professional builders to put a stage up so I don't have to do it myself and accidentally kill myself falling off 9 foot of scaffolding onto hard concrete. So I've got no sympathy for all this grant money that seems to flow towards the WMF like a bad case of diarrhoea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See meta:Grants:APG/FDC recommendations/2015-2016 round 1 #Wikimedia Foundation - need I say more? --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really, says it all. Eric Corbett 18:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's just insane, not to mention unsustainable. Nortonius (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

People seem unable to understand that criticizing them for poor writing and worse sourcing is not harassment. The worst harassment I've seen on WP is far more subtle and not related to anyone posting on this page, including its namesake! Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled on this. Not sure if worth salvaging, but figured if anyone would know, you might. Draft:Jessica Bond (author). Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but if a book signing in a Swindon supermarket is the pinnacle of their career, it doesn't look promising. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Happy Days with Rachel and Billy" (32 pages, shipping weight 17.6 ounces (498.95161 grams), Amazon selling rank #9780722334997ohsorrythatstheisbn) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Made GA in 2 hours - though I did note some problems with it. I would hate to go so quickly to GAR but the review for GA was nigh instantaneous. Might you look at it, please? Talk:Cary_Grant/GA1 The entire process took under two hours total (13:16 to 15:02) which seems an eensy bit quick, I fear. Collect (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Gosh you're tedious Collect. What's the matter, you didn't get the onslaught you wanted from John so now think Eric's going to give it a nasty grilling? I'm sure Eric knows what it's like to work hard on an article and prmote something and then have somebody who has contributed bugger all try to shat all over it. We're aiming for about 70 kb readable prose for Grant, the same as Laurence Olivier. We're currently at 76kb. Quite rightly it should be a long article. I've not relied on the Higham book for strong claims, I've done my best to use the best sources on it but it really does have some decent details on earlier life which I would be reluctant to completely remove. I replaced about 40 or 50 Higham sources as I wrote it which were almost entirely accurate and verifiable in other sources, so I see no reason to believe everything in the entire Higham book is false, even if it's been criticised for the gay claims. 50 odd sources is more than I'd thought still though so I'll try to reduce that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am going to give it a "nasty grilling", in fact I'm going to delist it until a proper review is done. Eric Corbett 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well that's not productive is it? If you've got a problem with it Eric, why not take it upon yourself to do the sort of review you expected and work with me towards getting it into the shape you expect? What is to gain from getting it delisted but to humiliate me who has put hours of work into it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The integrity of GA is at stake, nothing personal. Eric Corbett 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've contributed hundreds of articles here and know when something meets GA or FA criteria. You've always had very high standards for GA, higher than most people. There is absolutely nothing in the Grant article which can't reasonably be set straight within the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Then set it straight in the next few days and I won't delist it. Eric Corbett 17:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I will try to, but you'll always spot things which nobody else will. I would welcome you editing it too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting obit at [2] "That his motives were probably financial is suggested by his admission in an interview that there was “certainly a difference of an enormous number of sales” between his poetry books and his biographies. His Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life (1988) might have been more aptly titled “Fascist, Lesbian Harlots at the Court of St James”, suggested one reviewer, who went on to observe that for the Duchess to have been guilty of even half the peccadilloes attributed to her, “early on she would have succumbed to exhaustion”." and some less flattering commentary about the "noted biographer." Collect (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cary Grant article is currently around 68 kb readable prose and 11,700 odd words I think which is just the sort of length I was thnking of. Laurence Olivier is 70kb and an FA. I've trimmed it down but I don't see any one film that I ramble on about or go into too much detail over now. The ones which have a bit more detail are the most remarkable ones of his career. I really don't want to strip it down to just starred in xxx, well recieved, than xx, poorly received etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it as you wish, as I can't see what you find that disagreeable. I'm sure the article will read much better for it once you have. If I hadn't have thought you'd retired from here I'd have probably asked you to look at it before I took to GAN.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Jaguar: I'm busy for the rest of the day, but I'm going to quickly say this. I've seen the conversation here and on Talk:Cary Grant/GA1, and there are two major things the original review does not do that surprise me, which are a) comment on whether or not certain claims are in the sources specified and b) suggest information in those sources that the article left out - without these, you cannot pass a review on criteria 3 ("Broad in its coverage"). I see Collect is a bit blunt about the choice of sources, but I have certainly wheeled out rants on Talk:The Who where I have defended the use of Dave Marsh's book as it received high critical praise despite the author being known for being a bit of a grump. I don't really see things being too different here.

I would recommend that rather than going through the full delist at WP:GAR, we simply revert the green blob, roll the review back to "on review", let whoever else has an opinion on it have their say, and then pass or fail the review based on that. I can think of one occasion where I thought a review was slapdash and got Blofeld in to do it again, and indeed Eric did pretty much the same at Talk:Queen (band)/GA1 (I know this because I reviewed it as well). I would furthermore recommend this is done immediately; no point waiting a few days.

The important point is that whatever we do should be left with an article's quality that accurately matches that claimed on its talk page.

As an aside, I am disappointed to see the name calling from highly experienced editors. Ironically I see Eric has been civil - like he says, it ain't personal. If somebody raises legitimate and constructive criticism of an article, the best way is to address the concerns calmly and factually, not to say "fuck off and get your head out of your arse". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, "I am going to give it a "nasty grilling"" is really nice and polite isn't it? Tell me, for a GA review to be valid nowadays does it have to be dragged out for a few weeks and the reviewer treat the nominator like a piece of shit to be considered a "professional review". Because whatever you think of Jaguar (arse comment aside) he treats people like human beings and tries to help rather than hinder people who build the encyclopedia, which on here is a rare trait.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who said "nasty grilling", Eric merely repeated it. You really can't blame Eric for calling out another editor's poor review. Passing an article because he knows someone has worked hard on it really isn't on. Eric is one of the most helpful of editors around here when editors are receptive to it. J3Mrs (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, but he made me feel like I'd produced an utterly crap article in the process. If he'd said "this review is utter bollocks, I'm going to do a more thorough review for Blofeld to ensure more things are picked up on" that would have been a lot more constructive wouldn't it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You really can't expect Eric to review an article just because someone else did it badly. Stop trying to put the blame on Eric and accept what he said. J3Mrs (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If he's outspoken enough on an article or review then yes, it would have been helpful to have had a more thorough review and constructive criticism. That would be helpful. I wouldn't expect it, but I know Eric does genuinely want to see article quality improved on here. He's still welcome to edit it. All I know is that a number of people have made me feel bad about developing a core article on here, which I've done as a volunteer, I didn't have to bother, the article could still be in September 2015 state. I'm blaming several people on this, and it's the sort of hostility which put people off wanting to contribute here. I know that Eric himself has often felt that way when putting in the time with writing something decent and having nothing but people turning up on the talk page with negative comments, so I thought he'd have been a little more understanding, whether or not he thought the GA review was rubbish or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Having just emerged from a GAN that ran for several weeks, I have to raise an eyebrow at anyone who completes GA review in two hours. I can't review an article that fast and fix everything. My take is that Blofeld does a lot of good work, but no one does perfect work, so perhaps the GA reviewer was less than meticulous. Perhaps we need to all breathe a bit deeper and chill out. Montanabw^(talk) 04:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Collect is now claiming that he promoted Cary Grant to GA, [3] he's not even in the contributor names. Perhaps Ritchie333 would care to comment on whether or not he thinks this is reasonable or not..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Um -- has it occurred to you to ping me when making such outrageous claims? Note that I was the one who got Higham, the famed fabulist, to be less revered in the Cary Grant article, that I was the one who pointed out that MOS says we do not call him "Archie" through the article, that I properly demurred on any "good article" relying on Higham, whom The Daily Telegraph ripped a hole in <g> etc. And the fact that I do not make a ton of 1 character edits does not make me into a non-person. (In short - my edits made a substantial difference in the article - including forcing it to comply with MOS etc.) ) And note that talk pages are where a lot of work is done on any real article. So what the hell do you do - you vandalize my user page - the one thing you damn well should know is "not done" on Wikipedia. 2 hour long "good article reviews" are a bane to Wikipedia, even if you collected 2000 of them. Cheers. What I do is research people, create genuine articles, and not rely on fabulists as a source for celebrity gossip. Anyone whose acts are substantially related to improving the article is involved in making it a good article. Would you prefer that I never had pointed out the horrid use of "Archie" all over the place" The fact that it relied on a bad source more than 65 times? That I had not vetted claims made in the biography? I assure you that checking claims is just as hard as paraphrasing books one after another. By the way, 15 edits can be as good as 1500 eensy edits and paraphrases. Collect (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your total input. You really think you promoted it to GA? You're as dishonest as some of the admins Eric has dealt with here over the years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• As a driveby comment, both you and Collect could probably benefit by reading Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Claiming FA contributions to save me repeating it. Overclaiming contributions on userpages is a practice that goes back to the dawn of Wikipedia, and is one to which we've always turned a blind eye on the well-established "you can have whatever you like on your userpage provided it's not actively disruptive" principle. (Collect, boasting about pageviews is a stupid thing to do even if you've written 100% of the article, since nobody except you cares. Blofeld, anyone who actually cares who wrote any given article is by definition going to be a Wikipedia regular and knows perfectly well how to confirm that you're responsible for 38% of the text and Collect isn't. Both of you, this is a really stupid thing to be fighting over, particularly on a talkpage like Eric's where you know a certain trigger-happy admin is watching who will happily block the pair of you for edit-warring if you give any excuse.) ‑ Iridescent 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed. This is a dangerous place to be expressing unwelcome opinions. As in fact is Wikipedia itself. I've lost track of the number of things I'm no longer allowed to comment on. Luckily though I'm not yet obliged to kiss Jimbo Wales' feet at one of the Wikimania freebies for the converted. Eric Corbett 00:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Iridescent, but then you're seeing it from a different perspective. Not normally something I could give a toss about, but this is an editor who tried to hamper my efforts in writing it and contributed nothing of substance. To me it's sort of like Kevin Gorman having a "This editor promoted Gropecunt Lane to FA status" on his user page, or in Cassianto's case Chillum claiming "This editor has promoted Joseph Grimaldi to FA status". It's absolutely ridiculous and somebody should at least question it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for being a bit of a pest - but might you give an opinion on this article I cleaned up a bit? It is short <g>, but finding out how much anyone can lie about their own c.v. was amazing. Collect (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up? The article urgently needs a "neutrality" tag on it. 3/4 of the article is citing poor press that Higham has received and offers little biographical information about is career. You can't possibly think that makes a neutral article here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I toned down most of the criticism. Even his writing partner (Moseley) disavowed Higham. I found that his major "poetry prize" is listed in no place at all, and his "Academie Francaise" honor is in the same league. Would you wish poorly sourced claims in any article? Really? And you show remarkable taste in setting up a separate section on your own talk page to "shame" me (your own term.) Every single part of that article is fully sourced, and if I wanted to criticize him, I could have trebled it in size. The man got his start in celebrity gossip writing for Rupert Murdoch! Sorry - the use of a worse-than-tabloid source is not for me. My style is far more like my creation of Charles S. Strong and Samuel Arnold Greeley. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[4] seems to be to be a more "I hate someone who actually made me remove 90% of the claims from a bad source, and made me actually follow the MOS about names" tirade than anything else. And he prides himself on 517 talk page followers - I think he should note how many you have before boasting about "shaming" editors whose aim was actually making sure an article was good - by removing fabulism and by vetting sources and claims and by following the MOS which the GA reviewer should have caught in the less than 2 hours the entire review took. Collect (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your user page says "This user won the Half Million Award for bringing Cary Grant to Good Article status.". It's a blatant lie Collect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Who cares what anyone claims to have done? And who cares about Wikipedia's worthless awards? Eric Corbett 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what he did, the article isn't neutral, "In The Films of Orson Welles (1970) and in Orson Welles: The Rise and Fall of an American Genius (1985), he said that Welles suffered from a "fear of completion"[9] that led him to abandon projects when they were nearly finished because others could then be blamed for their flaws.[10] Friends of Welles, in particular Peter Bogdanovich, criticised this thesis." You've written it in a fashion that we're here to report his criticism, not what he actually did in his life and what he wrote. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charles_Higham_(biographer)#Neutrality has you accuse me of pushing a POV for changing "argued" to "said" and for changing not a single word in another sentence you singled out. You are the very first person who has ever accused me of making something POV which I did absolutely nothing to at all! Is it possible that you are upset that I made the Cary Grant article get improved by lowering use of a bad source by 90%, and by actually following the MOS about using "Archie" repeatedly in that article? If so, then man up and accept that these were improvements. Finally - this is the wrong place for you to continue your "shaming" of me. I am notw 200% "shamed" so you can stop it. Warm regards. Collect (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

After the way I've been treated here I've got no motivation to help anyone with anything. Why not ask Jimbo Wales for an opinion? He seems to be in charge of this place. Eric Corbett 03:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I did ask Jimbo to do something recently and he agreed, unfortunately I'm male and the wrong side of 40 so I'm not going to hold my breath. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He promises lots of things, but rarely delivers. Eric Corbett 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Collect, you left a note to John saying "I'm done". You may well not have written most of the Higham article but there are glaring neutrality and sourcing issues which even the most basic of editors here could see, so if you were serious about sorting out the article those would have been resolved. There's four unsourced paragraphs for a start. It needs restarting from scratch, write a neutral account of his career and works and then a section on Criticism and balance it out more. I'm not saying this because of the Grant article, it's obviously not balanced and written well, whoever wrote it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(FITB) - you accused me of adding POV which was already in the article. Has it occurred to you that your "shaming campaign" has reached a point of ludicrousness, and your use of this talk page to continue it is sophomoric? If not, I fear that you well ought to be disabused of such opinions. In short - (FITB). Collect (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)